Ten-Forty Bonds were U.S. government bonds issued in 1864 to raise $75 million that would help cover war expenses. The bonds had a 6-percent interest rate and a maturation date of from 10 to 40 years. [1]

An act of March 3, 1864, authorized the issue of $200,000,000 bonds, bearing five percent interest in gold, payable either in ten or forty years, and known in Wall Street as “ten-forties”. Already the sources disagree: Was it $75 million or $200 million? Was it 6 percent or 5 percent? New York Times says $200 million and 5 percent. At first only $100 million of the ten-forties were issued. [2]

In the U.S. Congress, Thaddeus Stevens was worried about the “sporting men”. He introduced a resolution instructing the Committee of Ways and Means to inquire into the expediency of bringing in a bill to prevent combinations being formed to raise the price of coin and depreciate the value of lawful money of the United States. (Background: Hot Sheets of the Sporting Men, Ersjdamoo’s Blog, August 4, 2015.)

There was at the time both the “lawful money” and the “legal tender money.” The original “Greenback”, money owned by the people of the United States and overseen by Congress, as the U.S. Constitution intends, was inspired by Colonel Dick Taylor and advice he gave to President Abraham Lincoln in 1862. Then a new National Bank currency was made to so closely resemble physically the “Greenback” that few would notice the difference. The original greenback was the “lawful money” which Thaddeus Stevens was worried about. (Background: Evil Doings of the Salmon, Ersjdamoo’s Blog, July 31, 2015.)

The shadow of the lawful money greenback was the legal tender greenback issued by national banks. The Ten-Forty bonds paid five percent interest in gold. If you, back then, wanted to start your own local outlet of a national bank, you purchased government bonds which paid 6 percent interest in gold. The government bonds were the security for the capital of your bank. [3]

One source says “6 percent interest in gold” [3], another source says “five percent interest in gold” for the “ten-forties” [2]. The point is that if the price of coin (gold) was raised and the value of lawful money was depreciated, as Thaddeus Stevens feared, then the national bank shadow greenback would tend to be favored over the original lawful money greenback.

On the completion of the subscriptions to the first $100,000,000 of the ten-forties, a combination (conspiracy) was formed in Wall Street, with the view of inducing the Secretary of the Treasury to withdraw all further issues of these bonds. “The obvious result of the adoption of this policy would have been to enhance the price of all gold interest-bearing bonds of the Government.” [2]

William Pitt Fessenden, the new Treasury Secretary after the departure of the Salmon (Salmon P. Chase), was waited upon by a delegation from this Wall Street combination, but he flatly refused to lend himself to any such stock-jobbing operation. Hence there was “the wrath of the stock-jobbers.” [2]

There were “news” fakers then, as there are now. Some newspapers propagandized against what Fessenden had done. But, asked “W.S.”, how can loyal journalists, “at a time when the Secretary of the Treasury is bending all his energies to the solution of a problem of unexampled magnitude and portentious difficulty, reconcile it with their patriotism to do nothing but sap the foundations of the public credit, distract and disturb the public mind, and by a factious opposition render the task of the Secretary of the Treasury an hundred-fold more difficult?” [2]

Distracting and disturbing the public mind seems to be part and parcel of the “news” faker business. Back then it was propaganda against further issuance of the ten-forties. Lately the distracting and disturbing of the public mind has involved Confederate flags and Cecil the lion. But, notices Paul Joseph Watson, reporting for Infowars.com, “While everyone was freaking out over a lion, the Obama White House just declared war on Syria and hardly anyone even noticed.” [4]

Does Obama have legal right to defend Syrian rebels with Air Force? State Dept. can’t answer

Gayane Chichakyan of Russia Today news also noticed that Barack Obama, without bothering about the War Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which vests in the Congress (not the President) the power to declare war, had stepped across a legal boundary when he “approved” using U.S. air power to “defend” U.S.-backed “rebels” in Syria. Ms. Chichakyan, during a U.S. State Department press briefing, asked the spokesperson, Where is the legal justification in the U.S. Constitution or in international law? The spokesperson hemmed and hawed but did not answer the question.

——- Sources ——-[1] The Language of the Civil War, by John D. Wright.[2] “THE TEN-FORTY QUESTION”, New York Times, January 5, 1865.[3] Lincoln: Money Martyred, by Dr. R.E. Search (pseudonym). Palmdale, CA: Omni Publications, first published in 1935.[4] “Obama Just Declared War on Syria (…and hardly anyone even noticed)”, by Paul Joseph Watson. Infowars, August 4, 2015. http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-just-declared-war-on-syria.html

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About ersjdamoo

Editor of Conspiracy Nation, later renamed Melchizedek Communique. Close associate of the late Sherman H. Skolnick. Jack of all trades, master of none. Sagittarius, with Sagittarius rising. I'm not a bum, I'm a philosopher.